Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Subhojit Kumar Roy (Accused No.1), filed a bail petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after being arrested in connection with Crime No.14 of 2022 registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thoothukudi.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner and other accused persons allegedly created a fake website in the name of Bharat Petroleum and published dealership advertisements through online platforms. Believing the website to be genuine, the defacto complainant deposited money towards dealership processing. It was alleged that the accused collected amounts from victims and dishonestly misappropriated the money.

The petitioner contended that he was merely employed as a web designer, had created the website in the course of his work, and had no involvement in the alleged cheating. He further claimed that he had received only web designing charges and was not a beneficiary of the fraudulent transactions.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC.
  2. Whether the petitioner's role as the creator of the disputed website justified continued judicial custody during investigation.
  3. Whether the possibility of absconding and the pending investigation warranted rejection of bail.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner submitted that he was working as a web designer in a private company and had no intention to participate in any fraudulent activity.
  • He argued that he had only designed the website and was not involved in collecting money from the victims.
  • It was contended that no substantial amount had been credited to his account and that he had received only professional charges for his web designing services.
  • The petitioner further stated that he had noticed discrepancies in the GST number and account details used on the website and had informed the co-accused about the same.
  • He expressed willingness to deposit 50% of the amount allegedly received in his account and raised no objection if the complainant withdrew the amount.
  • Since he had remained in judicial custody for more than one month, he requested the Court to grant him bail.

Respondent's Arguments

The prosecution strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that:

  • The petitioner, along with other accused, intentionally created fake websites impersonating Bharat Petroleum for the purpose of cheating prospective dealership applicants.
  • A large amount of money had been routed through the accounts connected with the accused persons.
  • Even after abandoning one fake website, another website under the name "Fuel.in" was allegedly created to continue similar fraudulent activities.
  • The petitioner's mobile number was actively used in the commission of the offence.
  • Being a resident of West Bengal, there was a genuine apprehension that he might abscond if released on bail.
  • Investigation was still in progress and custodial detention remained necessary.

Court Order / Findings

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court observed that:

  • The petitioner admittedly created the website that formed the basis of the alleged cyber fraud.
  • The petitioner's mobile number had been used in connection with the commission of the offence.
  • Several email communications between the accused persons had been deleted, indicating that the investigation was still incomplete.
  • Since the petitioner resided outside the State and there existed a reasonable possibility of absconding, releasing him on bail could adversely affect the investigation.
  • Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the petitioner's role in the offence, and the pending investigation, the Court found no grounds to exercise its discretion in favour of granting bail.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the bail petition.

Important Clarification

  • Merely describing oneself as a web designer does not automatically absolve liability where material on record indicates active involvement in creating the fraudulent platform used for commission of the alleged offence.
  • While considering bail, courts evaluate the seriousness of allegations, the stage of investigation, the accused's role, and the likelihood of absconding or influencing the investigation.
  • In cyber fraud cases involving impersonation through fake websites, courts may refuse bail where prima facie involvement and investigation requirements justify continued custody.

Section Involved

  • Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Special powers of the High Court and Court of Session regarding bail. 

Link to Download the Order

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1785218444_2116compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.